PURPOSE: To prospectively compare accuracy of gray-scale subharmonic imaging (SHI) with that of standard gray-scale ultrasonography (US), power Doppler US (with and without contrast material), and mammography for the diagnosis of breast cancer, with histopathologic or clinical follow-up results as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant pilot study had institutional review board approval; all subjects gave written informed consent. Fourteen women (age range, 37-66 years) had 16 biopsy-proved breast lesions. In SHI, pulses are transmitted at one frequency, but only echoes at half that frequency (the subharmonic) are received. A US scanner was modified to perform gray-scale SHI (transmitting at 4.4 and receiving at 2.2 MHz). Precontrast imaging (gray-scale US and power Doppler) was followed by contrast material-enhanced power Doppler and gray-scale SHI. A reader blinded to mammographic and pathologic findings assessed diagnosis on a six-point scale. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were computed for mammography, gray-scale and power Doppler imaging (pre- and postcontrast), and SHI. RESULTS: Of the 16 lesions, four (25%) were malignant. Mammography had 100% sensitivity and 20% specificity. Sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were 50% and 92% for precontrast imaging and 75% and 75% for contrast-enhanced power Doppler. SHI had 75% sensitivity and 83% specificity. Specificity was higher for all US modes than for mammography (P<.04). There were no significant differences in specificity among US modes or in sensitivity (P>or=.50). Area under the ROC curve for the diagnosis of breast cancer was 0.64 for standard gray-scale US and power Doppler US, 0.67 for contrast-enhanced power Doppler US, 0.76 for mammography, and 0.78 for SHI (P>.20). Contrast enhancement was better with SHI than with power Doppler (100% vs 44% of lesions with good or excellent enhancement; P=.004). CONCLUSION: SHI appears to improve the diagnosis of breast cancer relative to conventional US and mammography, albeit on the basis of results in a very limited number of subjects. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2007.
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare accuracy of gray-scale subharmonic imaging (SHI) with that of standard gray-scale ultrasonography (US), power Doppler US (with and without contrast material), and mammography for the diagnosis of breast cancer, with histopathologic or clinical follow-up results as the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant pilot study had institutional review board approval; all subjects gave written informed consent. Fourteen women (age range, 37-66 years) had 16 biopsy-proved breast lesions. In SHI, pulses are transmitted at one frequency, but only echoes at half that frequency (the subharmonic) are received. A US scanner was modified to perform gray-scale SHI (transmitting at 4.4 and receiving at 2.2 MHz). Precontrast imaging (gray-scale US and power Doppler) was followed by contrast material-enhanced power Doppler and gray-scale SHI. A reader blinded to mammographic and pathologic findings assessed diagnosis on a six-point scale. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were computed for mammography, gray-scale and power Doppler imaging (pre- and postcontrast), and SHI. RESULTS: Of the 16 lesions, four (25%) were malignant. Mammography had 100% sensitivity and 20% specificity. Sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were 50% and 92% for precontrast imaging and 75% and 75% for contrast-enhanced power Doppler. SHI had 75% sensitivity and 83% specificity. Specificity was higher for all US modes than for mammography (P<.04). There were no significant differences in specificity among US modes or in sensitivity (P>or=.50). Area under the ROC curve for the diagnosis of breast cancer was 0.64 for standard gray-scale US and power Doppler US, 0.67 for contrast-enhanced power Doppler US, 0.76 for mammography, and 0.78 for SHI (P>.20). Contrast enhancement was better with SHI than with power Doppler (100% vs 44% of lesions with good or excellent enhancement; P=.004). CONCLUSION: SHI appears to improve the diagnosis of breast cancer relative to conventional US and mammography, albeit on the basis of results in a very limited number of subjects. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2007.
Authors: V G Halldorsdottir; J K Dave; J R Eisenbrey; P Machado; H Zhao; J B Liu; D A Merton; F Forsberg Journal: Ultrasonics Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: Anush Sridharan; John R Eisenbrey; Priscilla Machado; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Annina Wilkes; Alexander Sevrukov; Robert F Mattrey; Kirk Wallace; Carl L Chalek; Kai E Thomenius; Flemming Forsberg Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: A Thomas Stavros; Andrea G Freitas; Giselle G N deMello; Lora Barke; Dennis McDonald; Terese Kaske; Ducly Wolverton; Arnold Honick; Daniela Stanzani; Adriana H Padovan; Ana Paula C Moura; Marilia C V de Campos Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Manasi Dahibawkar; Mark A Forsberg; Aditi Gupta; Samantha Jaffe; Kelly Dulin; John R Eisenbrey; Valgerdur G Halldorsdottir; Anya I Forsberg; Jaydev K Dave; Andrew Marshall; Priscilla Machado; Traci B Fox; Ji-Bin Liu; Flemming Forsberg Journal: Ultrasonics Date: 2015-05-05 Impact factor: 2.890